Bhutto was too easily seen as a cure to that which ails Pakistan, when in fact she was often the cause of the disease. Hitchens ruthlessly damns Bhutto with faint praise, noting her many faults and the uncertainty of whether she bothered to fix them all as he lauds her courage. "Courage," indeed. Bhutto's unnerving disregard for her own safety may have been some kind of death wish -- a recognition that her death at the hands of extremists would accomplish more than she would be able to do while alive. Or perhaps that was her ego talking. Either way, it's tough to determine what will ultimately be made of this violent assassination. It may be a "disaster," as Hitchens surmises, or it may be an opportunity for moderate Muslims to finally strike back against the extremists -- one of a million other such opportunities that have come and gone unheeded. More of the status quo.

I like Hitchens, even when his politics diverge from mine. But I think he takes too readily to kicking corpses around. As much as he may be right, there is a certain decorum requested. After all, it would be too wry by a half to paint a freshly-departed Hitchens as "the man with the courage to beat the stuffing out of a dead nun." He would certainly deserve more than that. And so, I suppose, does Bhutto.

She had a death wish, or at least a martyr complex. Certainly she knew that there was no chance of her wrestling power away from Musharraf. Now she is being treated like a martyr by our press. What is the protocol here, how long do you suggest we wait before we get to criticize Bhutto? She was a corrupt leader used as a pawn by the Bush administration, and now she is dead. Best she be remembered as the first elected leader of a muslim nation, flaws and all. A rough road lies ahead.

Bhutto was in exile since 1998--almost ten years. To call her the "cause of the disease" is a gross oversimplification. To be sure, she had her faults, but what ails Pakistan goes well beyond her.

I'm reminded that their assassination of activist Maria Elena Moyano was thought to be a turning point against Sendero Luminoso in Lima.

Yes, blame the assassinated victim for having a "death wish" and a "martyr complex."

Certainly, you realize she had the full backing of the United States because Musharraf was increasingly becoming an untenable ally. She, at the very least, was a fig leaf of democracy for Pakistan's U.S. allies.

She also had widespread popular support and could have easily won a free and fair election. Not to mention the fact that she was willing to forge power-sharing agreements with Musharraf and all he had to do was nominally go along with her to retain his authority.

To be certain, Bhutto was not without fault. She nonetheless was the first woman leader of a Muslim nation and threatened real change in the cesspool of Islamic extremism that is Pakistan.

Her assassination is a humiliating blow not only to nominal democracy in Pakistan, but also to the entire war on terrorism.

It is patently absurd to claim that she wished death and martyrdom when she could have easily lived out her life in wealth and comfort in Dubai. If anything, she had a lust for power and former glory, not death. Recognizing the inherent risks of an action does not mean that one wishes for the worst.

Psychodelicious: "What is the protocol here, how long do you suggest we wait before we get to criticize Bhutto?"

You're right, of course, that my concern is arbitrary. Perhaps it is Hitchens' past willingness to jump on fresh graves that makes me feel a pang in this case -- even when I have no particular sympathy for Bhutto.

Spruce: "It is patently absurd to claim that she wished death and martyrdom when she could have easily lived out her life in wealth and comfort in Dubai."

I think that rather proves my point, don't you think?

Bhutto may have been a great hope for democracy in Pakistan, but her prior record was a shambles. Does the fact that she was the first woman elected to the head of a Muslim state outweigh her support of the Taliban? The corruption that she allowed under her rule? No and no. Hitchens hoped that she had renounced her prior mistakes, but in truth there was little more than faith to back it up.

Further, the lesson these days seems to be that pragmatism is preferable to principle in foreign affairs. Democracy is a laudable goal, but for many countries we should be happier to just settle for stability and anti-extremism. Thus, whether Pakistan is closer or further from democracy is not the preeminent concern. Whether Pakistanis grow to embrace or resent Muslim extremism is.

spruce = rice?

Hitchens ruthlessly damns Bhutto with faint praise, noting her many faults and the uncertainty of whether she bothered to fix them all as he lauds her courage.

Did you read the same piece that I read? Obviously not, since what I read was fair, balanced and more importantly, accurate.

Sycamancy wrote: "Further, the lesson these days seems to be that pragmatism is preferable to principle in foreign affairs. Democracy is a laudable goal, but for many countries we should be happier to just settle for stability and anti-extremism. Thus, whether Pakistan is closer or further from democracy is not the preeminent concern. Whether Pakistanis grow to embrace or resent Muslim extremism is."

An absence of principle in foreign affairs. Agree.

Harvard's Charles Maier posited the observation that US politics has become "feminised" in his thoughtful book last year, Among Empires. Bhutto was neither an American nor a feminist, but she had unquestionably embraced many key attributes, largely to her credit, of a "thoroughly modern woman".

Behind the carnage of this story, there is a cadre of women, beginning with Rice, and including Frazer and (until recently) Hughes and many others, at State--and across the US government and policy network into the foreign affairs circles around Hillary Clinton--who have come of age with a very particular embrace of feminism. Not the Betty Friedan kind, but the sort that one observes amongst the US corporate ranks: entitlement.

Political correctnes forbids frank discussion there that would align any policy trend to be linked to gender patterns. This is unwise.

This event--perhaps more than others--results largely from arguments and policies that have had a distinctly feminine lead. Men at the US State Department like Nicholas Burns and Richard Boucher reflect this feminisation. Their phrases, their posturing, their avoidance of principle--the verbal architecture of which has long been masculine--reveal a "softness" on principle and emphasise "feminine" qualities in decision making: determination (can-do-will-do) and blind faith.

No question. World War I and most of the 19th century European nightmare might have been avoided had more feminine logic been deployed in official circles. But I would suggest that when feminine modus operandi coexist with questionable or clearly compromised competencies--as seems to be the case at State today--the results are disastrous.

The Clinton State Department (post Christopher) is marked by many bad decisions and tragedies, i.e., the Balkans and the 1998 post-Clinton-affair address bombings.

Some one should find the courage to explore these decision making processes with the courage to identify the genders of the participants. The trouble is that gender alone, as I note with Burns and Boucher, may not be sufficient, given a generation raised by soccer moms.

There is a point in this. Failure to FULLY assess those who are responsible for your policy making and who take on leadership is a failure to discern ALL of the factors that come into play in very human and subjective acts. History is then not well served.

Had a male Secretary of State made blundering, bull-headed decisions against better counsel, we certainly would here suggestions that he stuck blindly to principle like a man.

(Please note that the subject of this "feminist" question is not Mme Bhutto, but Ms Rice et al. Bhutto had that rare self-confidence and spirit that never needed such consideration, except in the context of entering into politics in a Muslim world. Arguably, that fire perhaps served to better challenge one's merits than the softer US system, but it seems likely that that societies' extreme elements that saw evil in women coming to power are the direct cause of yesterday's tragic death in Rawalpindi.)

Just to be clear, my initial response was to Psychodelicious' post, not yours.

As I have stated elsewhere, Bhutto is not without fault. She nonetheless represented the face of real change in Pakistan even if she, herself, was a mere figleaf of democracy (as the Financial Times) put it.

During her rule as PM, she did, indeed court the Taliban, viewing them as a stabilizing force in the country wracked by decades of war. She was removed from power the same year the Taliban came to power (1996), though, and she later became an outspoken critic of the them.